DUMP the DOE's "ACCESS ISLAM!"

DUMP ACCESS ISLAM CAN demands Dept. of Education remove Islamic indoctrination program   by Martin Mawyer The United States Department of Education has developed an Islamic indoctrination program for public schools called, 'Access Islam.' Pro-Islam Lessons Found in All Grades in Public Schools The taxpayer-supported Department of Education (DOE) is funding an Islamic indoctrination program in America’s public schools in grades 5 through 12, Christian Action Network has learned. Students are taught to learn Islamic scripture, give the meaning of that Islamic verse, and explain how they can use it in their daily lives. “How can this be anything other than indoctrination?” said Martin Mawyer, president and founder of Christian Action Network (CAN). The DOE offers no similar lesson plans for Christianity, Mawyer added. “There is absolutely no balance in the curricula offered. Only Islam is given a full course of study.” "Access Islam," from the PBS web site, funded by the U.S. Department of Education. The Islamic education program, funded by the DOE, is primarily disseminated through PBS LearningMedia and the Educational Broadcasting Corporation. The curriculum is called “Access Islam" and includes such lessons as: The Five Pillars of Islam, in which students in grades 5 through 12 explore and understand the basic beliefs of Islam, as well as “the Five Pillars that guide Muslims in their daily life … students will create posters about the Five Pillars for classroom display.” Students also learn the proclamation of Islamic faith -- which is akin to learning the Christian "prayer of salvation." (More information here) The U.S. Department of Education's funding of an Islamic indoctrination curricula is the topic of a new video produced by Christian Action Network. Salat: Prayer in Muslim Life, in which students in grades 5 through 12 learn “the importance of the Quran in daily worship.” The students are asked, “What do you see and hear when Muslims pray? How do the words sound? What is the purpose of praying five times a day?” (More information here) Quran: Sacred Scripture of Islam, in which students in grades four to six are taught that the Quran “is considered the word of Allah." Students must review quotes from the Quran and Hadith.  They must then to present one of the Islamic quotes to the teacher and "describe the passages practical application…” (More information here) “Can anyone imagine The Lord’s Prayer recited in a classroom?" asked Mawyer. "Or students taught that the Bible is the inspired, infallible final Word of God? Or displaying the Christian cross in the school classroom? Or lesson plans that encourage students to pray to Jesus Christ? It’s out of the question! Christ, the Bible, the cross and Christian prayer were thrown out our public schools decades ago.  In one DOE funded video, students are introduced to a man who has converted from Christianity to Islam.  The Muslim man tells students that Islam "is the true worship of God." The man then instructs children to "submit yourself" to Allah. Mawyer said he was so shocked when he learned that the Islamic curriculum was funded by the DOE that his organization fired off a legal “Letter of Demand” to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos demanding that the Islamic program be defunded and removed from access to the public schools of America. In the Five Pillars of Islam lesson plan, students are told to "focus on learning about the core duties of Muslims" and to "read about what it means to proclaim faith or belief as a Muslim." “As I scanned through the information online, it became obvious to me that the material is much more like a Sunday School lesson plan than a proper educational lesson on Islam,” said Mawyer. “These lessons are teaching our children and grandchildren how to be, act and live like Muslims. It’s outrageous! And every Christian and Jewish parent in America should be appalled at how our children are being indoctrinated into the Islamic belief system and lifestyle.” Students are taught in detail how to pray like a Muslim in the lesson plan “Salat: Prayer in Muslim Life.”  The lesson plan includes prayers that can be recited by students, descriptions of how and when to pray, and refers students to the web site “islamicity.com” to get more information about Islamic prayer times around the world. In this same study students are told to memorize the following prayer from Quaran 96:1-5: “In the name of thy lord who created man from a clot. And thy lord is the most generous who taught by the pen, taught man that which he knew not.” Mawyer noted that students are NOT taught that Jesus is Lord, but they DO learn that Allah is God. Preview for CAN's latest film "Islam In The Schools A Quick Look". To order the full version and learn more about this topic visit us at www.ChristianAction.org “I am calling on all Americans to demand the Department of Education dump this program,” said Mawyer. “This is an outrageous abuse of our taxpayer dollars, and an affront to the rights of parents to teach their children the religion of their choice.” As well as the DOE video, CAN has also released a video that takes a broader look at Islam in the Schools. It can be viewedhere. Download Christian Action Network's letter of demand to the Department of Education here.

Criminal's Creed, the Movie

I just saw the "Assassins' Creed" movie last night, and it sums up evil pretending to be good:

1) There is no truth!
2) Everything is allowed!
3) We hide in darkness to serve the Light!

I think those video games and movie are designed to indoctrinate our kids into becoming leftists "and" muslims (same thing/s; i.e: criminals)!

But what "light" could they serve, when it's not the Truth, and everything including lying, is allowed?! Lucifer's?!

Because those three statements embrace the islamic creed itself, and also the libertine "liberal" criminal's brazen rule of chaos!

In reality, civilized people rely on and agree to be bound to the Golden Rule of Law, which most simply defines morality as "Do Not Attack First!" and therefore all is in fact forbidden, unless and until very specifically agreed to, between people!

So we can do nothing either TO, or FOR, each other, without first asking permission.

And so our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only corollary, concomitant responsibility, is to not attack (thereby innocent) other people first!

Agreeing to the principle of this Rule gets us trust, economic progress, and civilizations, and countries of Makers.

The brazen rule of criminal chaos, on the other hand, is that one can always attack first (everything is allowed, unless and until very specifically denied)! So we get cases where people say "Sure, I took your stuff, but you didn't post any signs saying I couldn't take it, especially not on a Tuesday from between 10:13 AM and 2:47 PM!" And of course Muhammad used this to assert that, if he got away with committing his crimes (and he tried them all, many times, and instead of showing contrition, told others how much fun it was, for instance, to rape children, and urged them to join in the fun!) then "god" had always wanted him to commit them, and since god had sanctioned his crimes, then they were never really crimes at all!

Living in areas under this creed, where everyone's time is taken up plotting attacks and defenses against other families, clans, and tribe's attacks, gets them distrust, economic stagnation, and savage barbarity (see all the so-called "islamic" countries) - countries full of criminal Takers,  living in dirt and ruins, where all the Makers were driven extinct!

CAPISCE?!

Beyond that, the plot is insane: the Templars (the movie's bad guys) have always wanted to take over the world and control everybody (yeah, because they weren't in reality a reaction opposing islam's own clearly-stated global conquest and freedom-of-thought-supressing goals, but hey, it's a video game, right?) so they want to eliminate whatever instinct to violence exists in man, taking him over and "forcing" and enslaving him against his will, to be violent. So okay, the setting has the Assassins (yes, descendants of the very same islamic Ismaeli Alamut Hashishim of olde, sans the Aga Khan) creed (or secret society or old boys' and girls' club, not just a declaration of anti-moral principles) formed from these humans who are allegedly helplessly enslaved by violence (so far, so islamic)

Sura 4:77: Those who whined "Hold back your hands (from attacking)" were corrected:
"War is compulsory for us - the good and bad both come from allah!"

BUT then, the Templar's evil plan revolves around REMOVING FREE WILL - a concept which the allegedly islamic Assassin's Creed members unanimously oppose!

So, to reiterate: They are allegedly forced to be violent genetic killers by nature, but removing their free will itself is the solution which they all fear will negate their violent tendencies?!

Even worse, the alleged success of the 'evil' Templars' plan involved them using an ancient artifact known as the Apple of Eden (Yes, THAT apple!) which allegedly holds the genetic key to free will.

So human free will can allegedly be turned on and off, in everyone, by this mechanical device.

And the Assassins (and Spain's last islamic Sultan, Muhammad) are the magic bauble's guardians.

But wait! Islam doesn't not only not believe in free will, it also doesn't believe in Original Sin!

The whole Biblical "Garden of Eden" story was re-written by Muhammad in his Qur'an, to remove the whole alleged reason for mans' expulsion from the Garden - no snake, no apple, no Sin at all! And further, it makes Cain the hero of Genesis, and Abel the villain (but I digress again LOL)!

So in conclusion, the movie is (and, one must presume, the videogames them selves are) total criminal nonsense.
Even worse, they're still totally EVIL criminal nonsense which is aimed at gullible and impressionable young minds.

Ryan's RINOcare designed to punk Trump

From here:

Today at 3:30pm the US House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on a bill to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare. Whatever the outcome of the vote, the president is being sabotaged by Paul Ryan and other (((moderate))) Republicans.

Radical Agenda EP280 – Mr. Speaker

Today at 3:30pm the US House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on a bill to "repeal and replace" the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare. Whatever the outcome of the vote, the president is being sabotaged by Paul Ryan and other (((moderate))) Republicans.

Even with the tweaks made in effort to appease conservatives, the proposed measure will do little to alleviate the catastrophic and predictable consequences of the current law. As long as the federal government compels insurance companies to cover so called "pre-existing conditions" it is impossible to have a private health insurance industry without massive government subsidies. That of course, was the entire purpose of the ACA in the first place. Democrats set out to destroy the private healthcare market, with the intent of nationalizing it when costs became so high that nobody could afford it. That collapse is upon us, and whatever token effort the GOP makes to mitigate the damage, they will be bailing out Democrats at the expense of the President.

Any purported plan to have a second and third phase of the process will be sabotaged by this fact. In order to pass more meaningful reforms, the GOP will need to gain at least 8 seats in the Senate, and since most Senate Republicans might as well be Democrats, we would realistically need a lot more than that. This is going to be impossible when the liberal media is fed millions of disaffected sick people who lost their insurance subsidies. Every problem resulting from the passage of this bill will have blame placed directly on the shoulders of President Trump and congressional Republicans. Every resource at the disposal of the Democrat party and other leftist institutions will be poured into focusing on the perceived negative consequences of its passage, and barely any Democrats will miss the opportunity to show up at the voting booth in 2018 and 2020 to make their dissatisfaction known. In short, the passage of this bill will directly result in the loss of Republican political power, rendering impossible any attempt to pass greater reforms in the future.

Rand Paul seems to be about the only voice of reason on the subject, even if his reasoning is a tad off. He suggests passing a bill to repeal Obamacare, to the extent such a thing can be done through the reconciliation process, bypassing the need for 60 votes in the Senate. He then suggests a replacement bill should be voted on the same day, and he seems to mistakenly believe this will result in a more conservative outcome.

The advantage of passing the repeal separately from the replacement is not that it will result in a more conservative outcome, but rather that it will compel the cooperation of Democrats. If Obamacare is repealed outright, with no replacement at all, I predict that some number of Democrats would be willing to vote with moderate Republicans on a replacement plan that keeps such measures as the purpose defeating compulsory coverage of "pre-existing conditions".

That cooperation will serve as fuel for primary challenges against congressional Republicans who would sooner vote with Democrats than their fellow Republicans to the right. It also gives the impression of bipartisan support, which some Americans are stupid enough to believe is a positive. More importantly, it will mitigate the blame Republicans take for the fallout, thereby preserving some chance of obtaining greater majorities in the next two elections.

I for one have a difficult time believing that any of this is lost on Paul Ryan. He is sabotaging the Trump administration on purpose, the same way he did when he called Trump's comments about a La Raza member "the definition of a racist comment". For Ryan, this vote is a win-win. Either the bill will pass, and its disastrous consequences will be blamed on the president, or the bill will fail and the President will look weak. The only thing Paul Ryan has to avoid in order to accomplish his goals, is something that actually improves the conditions of the American economy.

Our only hope is that President Trump is already aware of this on some level. One could imagine a shrewd negotiator like Donald Trump feigning ignorance and playing the sucker right now, as a longer term strategy to purge the GOP of saboteurs like Ryan at a later date. If Ryan tanks healthcare reform now, few would blame the President for financing a primary challenger in 2018, and we can all but guarantee a new Speaker of the House as Ryan's last shreds of credibility fade from the minds of the public.

Court Rules in Favor of Police Who Pounded on Wrong Door, Didn't Identify Themselves, Then Killed Innocent Man for Holding a Gun

Still think the Government, Cops and Courts exist to protect you from (the other) criminals?!

From here:

March 23, 2017

RESOURCES

Click here to read the ruling in Amy Young, et al. v. Gary S. Borders, et al. 

ATLANTA, Ga. — According to a federal appeals court, police will not be held accountable for banging on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failing to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shooting and killing the innocent homeowner who answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. Although 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or lifted his firearm against police, he was gunned down by police who were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night “knock and talk” in Scott’s apartment complex.

In ruling in favor of qualified immunity for police, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has given law enforcement agencies further incentives to engage in aggressive “knock and talk” practices, which have become thinly veiled, warrantless exercises by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night.

“Government officials insist that there is nothing unlawful, unreasonable or threatening about the prospect of armed police dressed in SWAT gear knocking on doors in the middle of night and ‘asking’ homeowners to engage in warrantless ‘knock-and-talk’ sessions,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “However, as Andrew Scott learned, there’s always a price to pay for saying no to such heavy-handed requests by police. If the courts continue to sanction such aggressive, excessive, coercive ‘knock-and-shoot’ tactics, it will give police further incentive to terrorize and kill American citizens without fear of repercussion.”

On July 15, 2012, Deputy Richard Sylvester spotted a speeding motorcycle while on patrol in Lake County, Florida. Sylvester pursued the motorcycle in his patrol car but lost sight of it. Subsequent reports caused Sylvester to believe that the motorcyclist might be armed, was wanted by another police department, and had been spotted at a nearby apartment complex. Arriving at the complex around 1:30 a.m., Sylvester and three other deputies began knocking on doors close to where a motorcycle was parked, starting with Apartment 114, where a light was on inside. Apartment 114 was occupied by Andrew Scott and Amy Young, who were playing video games and had no connection to the motorcycle or any illegal activity.

Assuming tactical positions surrounding the door to Apartment 114, the deputies had their guns drawn and ready to shoot. Sylvester, without announcing he was a police officer, then banged loudly and repeatedly on the door, causing a neighbor to open his door. When questioned by a deputy, the neighbor explained that the motorcycle’s owner did not live in Apartment 114. This information was not relayed to Sylvester. Unnerved by the banging at such a late hour, Andrew Scott retrieved his handgun before opening the door. When Scott saw a shadowy figure holding a gun outside his door, he retreated into his apartment only to have Sylvester immediately open fire. Sylvester fired six shots, three of which hit and killed Scott. A trial court subsequently ruled in favor of the police, ruling that Scott was to blame for choosing to retrieve a handgun before opening the door.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Sylvester was protected by “qualified immunity,” reasoning that the use of excessive force did not violate “clearly established law.” Four judges dissented with the majority’s ruling, likening the “knock and talk” to a “knock and shoot” and rejecting the idea that Scott caused the shooting by exercising his Second Amendment right through his possession of a firearm.

Arguing with the Clarion Project Apologists for Islam

Dajjal asked me to blog about this, since libtarded leftopathy is so endemic these days. And naturally, being censorious fascists, they have no comments section in which we could to reply; so: From here:

Stand up Against Anti-Muslim Bigotry

No-one wants to feel victimized for things they didn’t do. Targeting ordinary Muslims for the actions of radicals is unfair and unjust. It also harms the fight against radical Islam. Increased anti-Muslim sentiment creates a sense of fear which makes Muslim activists less inclined to trust non-Muslims to defend their liberties and interests. If Muslims feel threatened in this way, they will be less willing and able to engage in difficult conversations about extremism.

For the radicals, anti-Muslim bigotry make fertile ground for recruitment, since it enables them to stoke a sense of grievance in the vulnerable people they are seeking to radicalize. Anti-Muslim bigotry and radical Islam empower each other. Say no to both and challenge anti-Musim bigotry whenever and wherever you find it.

Read and share our statement on anti-Muslim bigotry.

=======WHAT. THE. HELL! =======

It should never be allowed by backwards people to be considered “illegal” to accuse these criminals (muslims) of their crimes, allegedly because the painful truth might offend them or hurt their feelings, and so “make” them commit even more crimes!

No problem was ever solved by ignoring it, and we aren't doing even any of these muslims (whose own ancestors were among Muhammad's first victims) any favours by going along with any of their historic lies and alibi excuses for their crimes.

Pretending islam is just another religion like all the others, hijacked by some con-men, is wrong.

That's only a parochial, Western-based and ethnocentrist approach to islam.

Islam is NOT only not a real religion which could be and is sometimes only occasionally misunderstood and/or taken advantage of by a few evil persons.

It's not also - as are all the other, "real" religions - only an opinion presented as a fact (i.e: only a simple case of delusive criminal fraud)!

Islam is really an actual threat to everyone because IT says it is, not because we misinterpreted it.

The Qur'an is more than just another flawed book of confusing, contradictory superstitious nonsense, it's evil.

According to their own Eastern histories, islam has an official 1,400 year history of "holy" lies, extortions, robberies, tortures, arsons, kindappings, slaveries, rapes and 270 million murders: that's OVER A QUARTER-BILLION INNOCENTS SACRIFICED TO ALLAH, so far!

For a detailed breakdown of historical islamic depredations by region and era, just Google for: "Tears of Jihad."

Islam has a larger death-tally than that of EVERYONE ELSE, both secular and religious, COMBINED, and with an historical average of less than 1% of the global population to have committed it with, too!

Do the math: 270 million divided by 1,400 is almost 200,000 per year, or over 500 per day, or over 20 per hour or about one person every three minutes being murdered by Muslims ever since Islam was founded.

So, simply and precisely because of their "THOU SHALT KILL!" cultural indoctrination, MUSLIMS ARE STILL FROM BETWEEN FOUR AND SEVERAL HUNDRED TIMES MORE LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN MURDER (and all other crimes,) THAN EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD!

Islam is the greatest ongoing threat to humanity the world has ever yet known. But, to leftopaths, when islamic terrorists attack Infidels and then the infidel says please stop, that is the cause of the attack.

The Qur'an and islam itself should be banned, and all muslims resisted and exiled, because everything muslims pretend to believe is "holy" is already a crime!

BEYOND THAT...!

Stop asking liberals like these Clarion Project creeps to use "logic" to debate "facts!" Psycho-paths (aka thought-killers) prefer to feel, and they feel the best solution is always to become part of the problem!

Leftopaths are hidebound extortionistic ideologues - there can be no negotiating with such habitually criminal people (and I use the term "people" VERY loosely)!

Democrats never agree on facts, not even that "facts" can exist!

They pretend that "Life is too complex for anyone to ever really be able to understand cause-and-effect" (thus proudly claiming to be non-compus-mentis) "so, since all 'facts' are really only opinions anyway, my entirely fact-free, subjective opinion (i.e: that your stuff is really my stuff) is the diversely opposite equal to your silly objective "facts!" Whee!" That's always the backwards 'justification' for their perpetual extortion attempts (aka: slavery).

Leftopathy is a self-inflicted habit. They don't want to be cured, because extortion (accusing others) is easier than working!

Trump has an absolute majority, and since the leftist press will excoriate and attack him no matter what he does, he should damn "appearances" and simply ram through the legislation the people hired ('elected') him to anyway!


BAN ISLAM!

SJWs and HRCs

SJWs (Social Justice Warriors) & HRCs (Human Rights Commissions; not Hillary Rodham Clintons)

"Social" justice really only ever means group or gang rights trumping all real live citizen individuals' equal human rights.

It's also known as group-might-makes-right gangster "extortion," "communism" and, ultimately, "slavery."

Fitting perfectly in with their "SINCE you could discriminate, SO you WILL discriminate, so WE HAVE TO discriminate against YOU, first!" "pre-emptively defensively," slanderously paranoid attitudes, SJW criminals pretend to justify always attacking first. Perpetual victimhood implies a permanent oppressor, against whom ends always justify means!

They pretend to prevent racial and emotional stereotyping by writing bills which emotionally and racially stereotype.

They go for the largest local group class(ifications) aka "privileged white males," whose only real natural privilege is being inherently smarter than others - a condition no legislation can alter, except by forcing them through guilt to breed down to the lower common denominators, which, ironically, are already on exact par (blacks) or in the absolute majority (Dravidians, Asians) worldwide. So they are, in fact, working on behalf of the global majorities to suppress and oppress a global minority, all in the name of preventing oppressive discrimination by promoting racial minorities.

And when called out on their claims' lack of logic and factual evidence, they pretend that "Life is too complex for anyone to ever really be able to understand cause-and-effect," (thus also implicitly proudly claiming to be non-compus-mentis) "so, since all 'facts' are really only opinions anyway, my entirely fact-free, subjective opinion (i.e: that your stuff is really my stuff) is the diversely opposite equal to your silly objective "facts!" Whee!"

That's always the backwards, slanderously victim-blaming 'justification' their for perpetual extortion attempts (aka: slavery) - "Since you were going to enslave me first, I had to try to enslave you! And it's not an evil crime because we (i.e: you) all do it, too!" (Attack first, and, when caught, double-down and attack again, by blaming your victims by slanderously claiming they made you do it! That defines "Sin")!

Leftopathy is a self-inflicted habit. They don't want to be cured, because extortion (accusing others) is easier than working!

.......

HRCs are SJW snake-pits - all about dividing us into 'diverse' group-might-made-rights gangs, totally opposed to equal HUMAN rights!

ALL CORPORATIONS ARE ILLEGAL!

Corporations are illegal: irresponsible gang-might-makes-right scams.

The full title is "Legal Fiction of the Corporate Person" - it's idolatry, where they pretend groups of individual persons are single people. In reality, it gives everyone in the "corporate" person a shield of fraud (obviously, a "legal fiction" is still really only an illegal LIE, no matter what they say it is) to hide behind; it basically only embodies the notion that:

"I didn't do it - ONLY The GROUP did it! Whee!"

It "legalizes" the false notion that people can have rights without responsibilities, just  like all criminals want - the right to your stuff, without the responsibility for having to pay for or otherwise earn it. It legalizes theft through fraud. Lying is the most basic form of theft: it's the (at least, attempted) theft of the Truth. Since all crimes are forms of theft (non or pre-consensual transfer of property; aka attacking first) lying ("fraud") is a crime.

That's also why so many corporations have 'LLC' after their names - it stands for "Limited Liability Corporation" (aka limited responsibility)! It means the might-makes-right force of the false "law" enables them to have the right to injure people without being held "legally" responsible for it.

Do you want proof?

The only reason you can't - yet - get away with murder on your private property, is that you probably still define your self as a real, live, individual human person, and not as the other kind of "person" (aka as the "Legal Fiction of the Corporate Person") which, by choosing to put on the magical tautological and legalistic Ring of Power (by simply declaring yourself to be a "Corporation") you will gain the legally magical ability to become invisible to all real human laws, and so to discorporate your self from common sense and all real human culpability, see?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/14/chiquita.lawsuit/

(This article is from 2007, the crimes occurred in 2001, and the families LOST the lawsuit, when the courts declared the corp. was legally allowed to "dilute" the culpability of the murderers by the number of their murdered victims;) - in other words, "Each employee was only responsible for less than a whole murder, so no crimes occurred at all! Whee!"

Besides, you can't jail a "corporation."

;-)

In fact, ALL corporations start as pre-meditated conspiracies in this way:

Imagine if you or I went before a judge, and asked him:

"Your honor, I want the right to take risks with other people's lives and other properties, for gains which will only accrue to my self!"

He'd probably tell us to get lost (at minimum) and maybe even charge us with conspiring in advance to commit fraud and other crimes, like blatant extortion.

But the second we join together into a group or GANG, and say "Your honor, WE want to do this!" he automatically rubber stamps our criminally negligent conspiracy, as a  "corporate, legal" fiction!

CAPISCE?

;-)

And, (even worse!):

Greedy corporations bribed legislators to make "corporate law" for them selves which forces them to think shallowly and ironically denies them the right to make sacrifices now to plan for the future! They MUST buy lowest (from their 3rd world slave-pens) and sell highest; so they can't invest in local industries with higher labor costs by making sacrifices now, even if they wanted to!

Their own foolish laws would put them in jail for using common sense to plan ahead!

The Return of SLAVERY

(Actually, it never really left)!

It's All SLAVERY.

Socialism is slavery.
Fascism is slavery.
Islam is slavery.

Hypocrisy - the double-standards of do as I say, not as I do - is what all criminals, whether libertine "liberal" ones, or holy-mobster "muslims" are all about!

All criminals want to "progress" to having ever-more rights, and ever-less responsibilities all the time. They want a right to your stuff, without any responsibility to have to earn or otherwise pay for it.

And the best way for criminals to disarm their victims is to convince them that there are no real crimes nor criminals, but only helpless victims all the time.

Thus the only crime, they pretend, would be to accuse "another" helpless victim of being a "criminal," simply because they tried to commit a "crime" against you!

Perpetual victimology is perpetual slander, because it implies a permanent oppressor.

That way they can cast them selves as victims, and their victims as criminals.

Victimology is thus no more or less than perpetual extortion, aka SLAVERY.

By forcing their victims to produce without remuneration, criminals are slavers.

All criminals at least temporarily enslave their victims. Robbery forces others to work for crooks for free.

Delinquent criminally negligent libertine "liberal" criminals are takers who enslave makers by not working.

Slavery is simply permanent extortion. Banks enslave debtors with the idea that they are owed labor for loans.

Like all criminals, leftists are defeatist masochists at heart, having no faith in being able to trust even them selves, and so in stead choosing to slander everyone else as being equally untrustworthy.

Like Muhammad, their defeatism leads to self-fulfilling prophecies, where they attack everyone else, first, then blame their victims for having "made" them attack. Their alibis to excuse their criminal choices are that there is no free will and there were no choices to be made; they pretend to be victims at the mercy of inevitable, "predetermined/predestined" force: victims of society/mere products of their environments, and of course proud slaves of "allah."

acatalepsy
(n.) the impossibility of comprehending the universe; the belief that human knowledge can never have true certainty.
... aka: The criminal's favorite alibi: "Life is too complex so my opinion that your stuff is really mine, is a FACT!"

Masochists pretend to “control” their fears (in stead of trying to learn to recognize and fix mistakes and solve problems by paying attention to their fears) BY causing the same, worst-case scenario, pain-causing problems they fear the most.

When perceiving a threat, delinquent libertine criminals feel the best solution is to become part of the problem!

(Hence libertine "liberalism," where they pretend that it’s noble to pretend that fear doesn’t exist, and so always want to “progress” to “freedom” from the fearful pain of self-restraint).

In this way, they hope to avoid the fear of pain, by pre-emptively inflicting that pain on themselves (thus cancelling the auxiliary pain caused by the fear)! See?

But while not ALL criminal negligence is masochism, all masochism IS criminal negligence.

And of course, such criminals are also always all about the subjective double-standards:

What they advocate for in public may be only an attempt to sway everyone ELSE to SUBMIT!

Meanwhile, they think to them selves: "You're all fools, and I'm better than you!" Hypocrisy is the hallmark of ALL criminals and also accounts for 100% of "mental illnesses!" Paranoia IS slander:

'LIBERAL' MOTIVATION: "You're all out to get me so I'm gonna 'have to' get you first!"

Being selfish, they embrace hypocritical double standards, wanting rights without responsibilities, to never be offended by having their feelings hurt by the painful truth of being accused of their crimes.

Why do criminal gangsters from one gang always defend the criminal "rights" (to remain irresponsibly wrong) of any other, much less all other, criminal gang enterprises, too?

Why do they accept other criminals 'right' to attack them, first, when they are otherwise hypocrites, all about the subjective double-standards where only they have rights, and all others only ever have responsibilities - to them?!

Why to they all "GO ALONG" (with criminal lies) "TO GET ALONG" (with all the other lying criminals)?

Here's both how and why:

It's because their own inherent intrinsic and instinctive primary individual crime-excusing alibi is the slanderous and victim-blaming Argumentum Tu Quoque - that "WE (i.e: you) ALL DO IT, TOO!"

If and when they choose to stand for nothing, (no cause/effect) they choose to fall for anything.

It's why the current, treasonous gangster "socialist" allegedly Christian pope always defends islam.

All criminals ultimately pretend there are no facts (proudly and falsely 'confessing' they are non-compus mentis) and all their 'crimes' are only mistakes, because we're all only helpless victims!

As slavers, they expect others to have only responsibilities to them – to embrace suicidal masochism as their highest virtue, endorsing 'Collectivism' is hypocrisy, extorted by others' might-makes-right gangsterism into the Stockholm Syndrome, where one endorses "GOING ALONG" (with criminal lies) "TO GET ALONG" (with lying criminals).

There is no herd instinct in humans; no groupthink penchant either. In thinking about their futures, all rational individuals make individual judgments. If and when joining a group or gang of other individuals is seen to be more beneficial at a certain given time than another, people will chose it.

People really only permanently join ever-larger gangs to increase their 'rightful' ability to use force to extort other people, and to dilute their personal responsibility.

All criminals want to enslave their victims.

As subjectivists, all about the double-standards, only they are to be allowed to be considered innocent until (NEVER!) proven guilty, while everyone else is to be considered guilty until (NEVER!) proven innocent. As such, others have to prove the criminally negligent hypocrite is guilty, while also having to prove a negative; i.e:

"Prove you DIDN'T hurt my (wholly subjective, unprovable, opinionated) feelings, you hateful racist bigots!"

Then they try to get this enshrined into "laws" where only the criminals have rights, while only all the innocent law-abiding civilized victims have responsibilities - to obey the criminals!

(And it seems to be working - as we see here).

Group (gangster) rights give individuals extra rights to extort others and to dilute responsibility.

Corporations do this, with their "buy low/sell high" bulk-buying economies-of-scale imperatives.

Political parties do this, despite the fact it's illegal to conspire to influence legislators' votes.
(There is a right to free association, but it ends at the office where one is paid to do a job).

Street thugs and every kind of organized criminals do this - and even the unorganized ones claim membership in some sort of pre-existing "minority" victimhood groups.

Excuses aren't reasons:they're LIES, and lies (attempted theft of the truth, i.e: "fraud") are crimes.

"Slavery is good (for you, not me)! Just Submit and get it over with, like everyone else, and you can join (and then help merge) the right gangs, meet all the right people, and work your way up from the inside to being chief slaver!"

When caught at their "Enslave Or Be Enslaved" plots, it's: "Be a sport! Gimme a pass! We're all only victims, right?"

In that way alone, (by posing as a "victim") the Devil pretends he doesn't exist.

Any questions?

;-)

Bottom line: there is an easy solution to this, a way to cure leftopathic libtardation, but it might involve a cult-deprogramming session to get them to choose hope over fear. See, what they really fear, is being 'enslaved' to and by responsibility, and so they in stead enslave them selves to avoiding it - to habitual irresponsibility, to the false right to remain irresponsibly wrong. And this is because they haven't thought through, or been taught, the basic Golden Rule of Law which most simply defines morality as "Do Not Attack First" - where our only real right is to not be attacked first by others, and our only real responsibility is to not attack (thereby innocent) others, first. How easy to understand, remember and endorse is that? As opposed to their constant convoluted agitations to avoid what they perceive to be an enslaving altruistic obligation to help other victims all the time!

Canadian Judges OK with Slavery

From here: (Ottawa Citizen/National Post Monday March 13 2017 P.# MP3)

Ontario garage owner gets chance to fight liability for teen injured in stolen car crash

TORONTO — A garage owner will get a chance to argue before the Supreme Court of Canada that he should not be held responsible for the terrible injuries a teen suffered when he and a friend stole a car from his lot and crashed it.

Canada’s top court agreed last week to hear the highly unusual case in which the injured teen successfully sued the garage for leaving the car unlocked and its keys in the ashtray.

Court records show the teens had been drinking and smoking marijuana when they trespassed on Chad Rankin’s property in Paisley, Ont., late on an evening in July 2006. One of the teens, then 16, decided to steal a Toyota Camry even though he had never driven before.

The duo headed to Walkerton but never made it. The passenger, who can only be identified as J.J., was left with catastrophic brain injuries in the ensuing crash. J.J., then 15, sued his friend and his friend’s mother as well as Rankin for negligence.

Superior Court Justice Johanne Morissette determined Rankin owed J.J. a duty of care because, among other things, people entrusted with motor vehicles “must assure themselves that the youth in their community are not able to take possession of such dangerous objects.” 

WRONG, YOU LYING CRIMINAL BITCH! People aren't responsible for other people's kids! Not until/unless there's a pre-existing contractual obligation - which comes with rights, too!

The jury then found the injured teen and the defendants negligent, but laid the bulk of the blame — 37 per cent — on the garage owner. 

All this proves is that 37% of ignorant juries will go along with judges' lies because authority.

Last October, Ontario’s Court of Appeal refused to overturn the trial verdict, saying that Rankin did indeed owe J.J. a duty of care. It also found the jury’s findings reasonable.

“On the face of things, the notion that an innocent party could owe a duty of care to someone who steals from him seems extravagant, but matters are not so simple,” Appeal Court Justice Grant Huscroft wrote for the panel. “It is well established that the duty of care operates independently of the illegal or immoral conduct of an injured party.”

http://law.uwo.ca/news/2014/images/huscroft_coa.jpg

Ah, It Is Known, Kaleesi!" "Well-Established" by which gang of negligent criminals, again?!

And that's not "extravagant," you flaming moron - it's called "SLAVERY" and it's your crime!

A duty of care only operates independent of their criminal actions if you had a contract with them, retard.

In other words, you aren't allowed to be either negligent or criminally negligent in providing a contracted-for service, but when they straight-out fucking STEAL FROM YOU, no contractual responsibility exists!

The Appeal Court found that ample evidence supported the conclusion of “foreseeability” that a car might be stolen.

"SINCE a car MIGHT be stolen, it WILL be stolen, so it's all YOUR fault when they steal it!"

Hey if the courts can foresee ALL crimes happening, doesn't it make them ALL their fault?

Trial witnesses, the court noted, testified that Rankin’s Garage routinely left cars unlocked with the keys inside. In addition, evidence was that the garage took no measures to keep people off the property when it was closed; there had been a previous auto theft from the lot; and joyriding in the area was common.

So now you're responsible to the thieves because you made it too easy for them to steal your stuff, and then take it from your possession to another place where they injured them selves!

Rankin, Huscroft found, had abrogated his responsibility for securing the cars against theft by minors like J.J. and while a different jury might have parcelled out the blame differently, its conclusions were not unreasonable. The court also ordered Rankin to pay J.J. $30,000 in legal costs.

He had no fucking responsibility to PREVENT THEFT - he wasn't a cop, lawyer, or judge!

He had no contractual or social responsibility to keep the thieves who stole from him safe!

He wasn't negligent in leaving his own vehicles on his own property, you fucking fascists.

It’s not clear when the Supreme Court will hear the case.

...every cop is a criminal...

From here:

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Abusive Civil Forfeiture Law, Allows Police to Keep $201,000 in Cash from Legal Home Sale with No Proof of Criminal Activity

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In refusing to hear a challenge to Texas’ asset forfeiture law, the U.S. Supreme Court is allowing Texas police to keep $201,000 in cash primarily on the basis that the seized cash—the proceeds of a home sale—was being transported on a highway associated with illegal drug trade, despite any proof of illegal activity by the owner. Asset forfeiture laws, which have come under intense scrutiny and criticism in recent years, allow the police to seize property “suspected” of being connected to criminal activity without having to prove the owner of the property is guilty of a criminal offense.

Lisa Leonard, the owner of the $201,000, had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to compel Texas to return her money, given that she was innocent of any crime. In a written opinion that denounced the profit incentives that drive asset forfeiture schemes, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded, “This system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses.”

Justice Thomas’ opinion in Lisa Olivia Leonard v. Texas is available at www.rutherford.org.

“Relying on the topsy-turvy legal theory that one’s property can not only be guilty of a crime but is guilty until proven innocent, government agencies have eagerly cashed in on asset forfeiture as a revenue scheme under the pretext of the War on Drugs,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Yet if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights. The government’s practice of policing for profit must stop.”

On April 1, 2013, James Leonard was driving with a companion, Nicosa Kane, on U.S. Highway 59 in Texas when the vehicle was stopped by a state police officer for allegedly speeding and following another vehicle too closely. A subsequent search of the vehicle disclosed a safe in the trunk, which Leonard explained belonged to his mother, Lisa Leonard, and contained cash. Kane provided a conflicting account about the contents of the safe. When the police officer contacted Lisa Leonard, she confirmed that the safe’s contents belonged to her, that the contents constituted personal business, and that she would not consent to allowing the officer to open the safe. After police secured a search warrant, the safe was opened and found to contain $201,000 and a bill of sale for a home in Pennsylvania.

Neither the Leonards nor Kane were found to be in possession of illegal drugs. However, the state initiated civil forfeiture proceedings against the $201,100 on the ground that it was substantially connected to criminal activity because Highway 59 is reputed to be a drug corridor. At trial, Lisa Leonard testified that the money was being sent to Texas so that she could use it to purchase a home for her son and Kane. Both the trial and appeals courts affirmed the authority of state officials to seize and keep Leonard’s funds under the state’s asset forfeiture law, basing their ruling on wholly circumstantial evidence and the reputation of Highway 59.

In criticizing abusive asset forfeiture schemes, Supreme Court Justice Thomas noted, “These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings. Perversely, these same groups are often the most burdened by forfeiture. They are more likely to use cash than alternative forms of payment, like credit cards, which may be less susceptible to forfeiture. And they are more likely to suffer in their daily lives while they litigate for the return of a critical item of property, such as a car or a home.”

YOUSE PAYS US TO PROTECT YOU FROM ALLA DOSE OTHER CRIMINALS - CAPISCE?

;-)

Weird Economics

BrandonSmithEconomics

From here:

Are we witnessing the weirdest moment in economic history?

Posted on March 7, 2017 by Brandon Smith Views: 1,615

81 Shares

It is an unfortunate reality that most people tend to be oblivious to massive sea changes in geopolitics and economics. You would think that these events would catch the immediate attention of everyone as they happen, but usually it is not until they realize that the microcosm of their personal lives is subject to the consequences of the macrocosm that they wake up and take notice.

There are, however, ways to train yourself to pick up on signals within the news cycle and within political and financial rhetoric; signals that indicate a great shift is perhaps on the way. Sometimes these initial signs are subtle, sometimes they are as subtle as a feminist slut-walk. I would point out that over the next few months there are dangerous correlations so numerous and blatant in the economic sphere that I would almost rather watch a gaggle of frumpy feminists wearing nothing but electrical tape than bear witness to the mayhem that is about to strike the unwitting public.

What am I talking about? Well, let’s go through the list…

Federal Reserve meeting March 14-15^th

As my readers know well, I have been warning since before the election that the Fed would use a Trump presidency as an opportunity to pull the plug on near-zero interest rates and remove a primary pillar supporting stock markets — primarily stock buybacks made possible by free overnight loans to numerous banks and corporations. Without QE and low interest rates the equities bubble will inevitably implode.

Corporate earnings certainly aren’t holding up stocks, neither is GDP or consumer spending. The Fed is the only determining factor of the ongoing bull market. Anyone who claims otherwise is probably a mainstream analyst or overzealous day trader with a vested interest in keeping the illusion going.

It is not surprising to me at all that the “rate hike odds” for March have been increased by mainstream analysts to nearly 100 percent in the span of a week. I don’t know why anyone uses these arbitrary odds as an indicator of anything. I’ve been receiving emails all month asking me if I still believe the Fed will hike rates while the odds are “so low.” Look, the Fed does not make decisions at these meetings. They make decisions months in advance and the meetings are window dressing.

Too many people operate under the delusion that the central bank wants to continue propping up stocks, which is why they cannot grasp why the Fed would raise rates. In reality, the stage has been perfectly set to allow the bubble to implode. When the elites have a perfect scapegoat, they use it, and conservative movements represent that perfect scapegoat today.
The important thing to remember, though, is the timing of this particular meeting…

U.S. debt-ceiling suspension ends March 15^th

So, in case you weren’t tracking the economic situation two years ago, the U.S. government almost went bust (in a sense) in 2015. The debt ceiling sets limits on how much the government can borrow to fund itself, and that limit was hit hard under the Obama administration after he managed to nearly double the national debt during his tenure. Congress passed legislation to allow borrowing to continue until March 2017, and of course, much of that capital was “borrowed” from the Federal Reserve, which, of course, creates it out of thin air. With the return of the debt ceiling, the question is — will Congress be able to extend and delay again? With Trump running on a platform of fiscal responsibility, can they extend again?  Do they even want to, or is this an engineered crisis event?

Once again, the timing of all this is a little odd. The Fed is raising rates into the first year of the Trump presidency leaving equities increasingly open to destabilization. In addition, the government might not be able to continue borrowing from them, or there will be a renewed extension but the costs of borrowing will run much higher. In either case, this month seems to pronounce the beginning of something; a considerable move away from the standard operating procedures that the elites have been using for the past several years. With such changes come consequences, always.

Formal initiation of Brexit on March 15^th

The skeptics have been telling me for months that even though I was right about the Brexit vote victory, the elites “would never allow” the British to formally leave the EU. Well, it doesn’t look that way to me so far. Theresa May plans to formally notify the EU of British exit on March 15^th triggering two years of negotiations which will undoubtedly send economic shock waves throughout the globe on a regular basis.

Of course the Brexit will move forward! Why not? Globalists need a continuing atmosphere of crisis to distract the masses from their great global reset, and they need multiple scapegoats for the economic disaster that their reset will cause. Enter conservative movements, once again the perfect target to pin a crisis on.

French elections start April 23^rd, end May 7^th

Yet another election in which the EU hangs in the balance. Recent polls indicate that Marine Le Pen, the designated “populist,” is falling behind. I have to ask, though, have we not learned our lesson yet on the meaninglessness of political polls? I think most of us have.

I believe Le Pen will be one of the final two candidates to move on to the election in May, and though I am not as certain as I was on Brexit and Trump, I am going to go ahead and predict a Le Pen win. If there is any sizable terrorist event in the next couple of months in the EU, or expanded Muslim riots, she is a guaranteed win. This brings up the very real prospect of a “Frexit” in the near future, and analysts should expect that a Le Pen win will be met with some panic in the financial world.

Potential Italian election move on April 30^th

The Italian political process is a little confusing to me, but what I can tell you is that this spring or early summer you will probably be hearing a lot more about it. Former Italian prime minister and current Italian Democratic Party leader Matteo Renzi is set to decide on a the date for a leadership vote, which may come as early as April 30^th. The outcome of this vote will likely decide how soon the next official Italian election will take place.

The election is required to be held before May 2018, but there is increasing pressure to hold elections in 2017, perhaps even this coming summer. I would not be at all shocked to see a surprise announcement of an early Italian election after the leadership vote is held.
Why should anyone care? The consensus is that Renzi’s party will be overrun by anti-EU factions and that this may result in a kind of “Italiexit.” The outcome of Italy’s series of votes and political restructuring will have wide reaching effects on the psychology of the markets for many months to come.

German Federal election held September 24^th

Yes, even Germany is quaking this year in the wake of a potential “populist” tsunami. Angela Merkel is exceedingly unloved by her own people lately as her approval ratings collapse. Once-silent sovereignty champions in the country are becoming more and more vocal about Merkel’s rather insane open immigration policies which were the key element that drew millions of Muslims into the EU. It was the German government’s promise of endless entitlement programs that created the incentive for the mass migration in the first place, and now, finally, the German people are fed up with the complete lack of cultural assimilation and what many see as the destruction of western values.

I do not think that Germany will abandon the supranational concept of the EU regardless of the outcome of the election, but the removal of Merkel would signal a less agreeable Germany, which would exacerbate the already tottering European Union. Meaning more economic uncertainty in 2017.

If you thought 2016 was weird…

If you thought 2016 was weird, I suggest you get comfortable with the surreal because it is not going away anytime soon. 2017 is a veritable treasure trove of falling elevators, and I haven’t even covered half of the issues facing the economy this year. But what about the macro-analysis?

To summarize, it seems to me that many of these events, stacked so closely together, are not coincidental in their timing. As I have noted in articles such as The Economic End Game Explained, globalists have been openly planning for decades to set in motion a vast financial overhaul and the launch of a single global economy and currency starting in 2018. If this is still their timeline, then it would follow that they would need a series of fiscal earthquakes designed to shake up the “old world order” to make way for a “new world order.”

Perhaps each of these events will result in a “stable” outcome and there is nothing to be concerned about. That said, I don’t believe in chance. Most geopolitical outcomes are influenced by internationalist players, which makes the outcomes of these events predictable. This is what made the Brexit predictable, and it is what made Trump’s victory predictable. Everything about the confluence of political and economic events in 2017 suggests to me a festering crisis atmosphere.

As I have always said, economic collapse is a process, not a singular moment in time. This process lulls the masses into complacency. You can show them warning sign after warning sign, but most of them have no concept of what a collapse is. They are waiting for a cinematic moment of revelation, a financial explosion, when really, the whole disaster is happening in slow motion right under their noses. Economies do not explode, they drown as the water rises an inch at a time.

–Brandon Smith

YES, OBAMA BUGGED TRUMP TOWERS!

From here and here:

HERE'S THE PROOF THAT OBAMA HAD TRUMP TOWERS WIRE-TAPPED:

Obama’s team first tried to get a broad FISA warrant to investigate the Russian fantasy.
The judge turned it down.

It tried again with a narrower FISA warrant request.
The judge turned it down.

Then it tried a third time, and the judge approved it in October.
Coincidentally, that is the exact time Trump says the wiretapping began.

Obama or Lynch could well be prosecuted by the Trump administration.
And one or both probably should be.

Misuse of FISA statutes is a clear violation of the law.

FISA can only be used for “foreign intelligence information” as the basis for surveillance to protect the U.S. against a “grave” or “hostile” attack, war-like sabotage or international terror.

Does anyone suggest such a thing with regard to Russian hacks?

Out of more than 35,000 FISA court requests, only 12 have ever been rejected. But two out of three requested by the Obama administration to investigate the Russia deal were.

What does that tell you?

It tells me this was a political fishing expedition to build a case against Trump if or when he beat Hillary. This is one of the most dangerous developments in American political history.

Further:

Radio host Mark Levin laid out on his show a timeline of events pertaining to the Obama administration’s surveillance of Trump. From Breitbart:

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials.” The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.


SO, AFTER ALL THAT EFFORT TO GET THE WIRETAPS APPROVED BY A JUDGE, ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THAT, ONCE OBAMA WAS FINALLY GRANTED THE PERMISSION TO SPY ON TRUMP, HE DIDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH ON IT?!